Re: Multi core
- From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Apr 2008 08:16:32 -0700
On 2008-04-28, I.P. Nichols <NoSpan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
A bit too techno centrical. Business case totally absent.
His conclusion seems to be "give every devel a
multicore on the desktop, raise a lot of noise about it, and it will work
Don't give up your day job to become an blog article analyst. ;-)
I never said I would do either. (quiting or becoming b-a analyst).
I don't agree. Handcrafting is expensive, so my opinion (which is why I
posted the Knuth reference) is that an important piece of the puzzle is
missing. Something that makes threading cheap enough to _always_ use it.
And I have doubts that is reasonably possible. In that I agree with Knuth.
But not all applications need parallel multi-core threading, those that
benefit the most will use it.
Of course. But there is a big gap about "using multicore" which seems to be
equal to "spawns a thread somewhere" and a N-core scalable SMP application.
A lot of the apps now "fixed" for 2 or 4 core might need fixing again in the
future, since the tradeoffs to threading will keep changing. I'm not a
specialist, but I can already easily finger a few:
- lock costs differ per CPU
- Faster core means more work can be done in a certain time quantum. (say
- More cores.
- Higher SMP communication speeds (Barcelona, Nehalem) -> cheaper to move
- More NUMA usage. (NUMA on the desktop the next trend?)
IMHO the photoshop category. Special purpose, very skewed
benefit tradeoff, since how many people use Excel?
Most all business people who do accounting, technical analysis, forecasting,
charting, modeling, etc use Excel.
notepad is used even more. Still I doubt a multicore app would benefit many.
So use doesn't equal demand for speed, a few people excluded.
AFAIK it's the second most used of the MS
Office Suite applications and I dare say it has lots more users than the
combined total of users of Delphi, Visual Studio and Photoshop. :)
Note that there were two aspects to the original post:
1 the use of dual cores.
2 the cost of making a program that uses them.
You seem to only reply (1), the less interesting one.
Us database programmers can use Parallel Language Integrated Query (PLINQ)
takes advantage of multi-processor computers and multi-core processors.
Another stopgap technology. Might as well say that my app uses MMX/SSE since
the move() procedure uses it.
- Re: Multi core
- From: I.P. Nichols
- Re: Multi core
- Prev by Date: Re: RAD Studio Roadmap Updated
- Next by Date: Re: Multi core
- Previous by thread: Re: Multi core
- Next by thread: Re: Multi core